Bug#469124: RFH: spamassassin -- Perl-based spam filter using text analysis
Package: wnpp Severity: normal I request assistance with maintaining the spamassassin package. I've been fairly slow to respond to bug reports and packaging issues, and I don't forsee this getting any better in the forseeable future. The Debian packaging efforts are coordinated in the collab-maint Alioth project Subversion tree. (See http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/PackagingProject.) Discussion can be done throught the PTS. Be sure to read the documentation on svn-buildpackage and dpatch. If you're interested, please jump right in. Take a look at the bug list, and help forward bugs upstream (http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org), close bugs, or fix bugs as necessary. All Debian developers have access to the collab-maint tree to make changes directly (if you're not a DD, contact me). I'm happy to add interested people to the Uploaders: field once I start seeing some contributions. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Thanks in advance! Duncan Findlay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass bug filing: non-UTF8 debian/{control.changelog}
Hey! Thanks for the status update. Russ Allbery wrote: > There are four source packages left with changelog encoding problems: > > http://lintian.debian.org/reports/tags/debian-changelog-file-uses-obsolete-national-encoding.html > > There are no remaining packages with control encoding problems. > > There is one package with a NEWS.Debian encoding problem and 417 packages > with debian/copyright encoding problems, but those weren't release goals. According to http://release.debian.org/lenny/goals.txt # UTF-8 debian/changelog and debian/control Advocate: Russ Allbery Release-Team-Contact: ?? Description: Fix all remaining debian/changelog and debian/control files which don't use UTF-8. These are easily found by lintian via debian-changelog-file-uses-obsolete-national-encoding and debian-control-file-uses-obsolete-national-encoding. Bug-User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug-Tag: goal-utf8-control Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&tag=goal-utf8-control State: confirmed I think this Release Goal can be changed to "State: finished" very soon. Another release goal for lenny+1 should be issued inheriting the leftovers from this one. The "Bug-Url" field lists several bugs that seem not to exist in sid/testing anymore: #453966: xmms-arts: debian/changelog should be utf8 * [2008-01-20] xmms-arts REMOVED from testing (Britney) * [2008-01-20] Removed 0.7.1-4 from unstable (Joerg Jaspert) #453982: gmanedit: debian/changelog should be utf8 * Orphaned, still in testing, not sure about unstable. * [2008-02-11] gmanedit 0.3.3-12.1 MIGRATED to testing (Britney) #453991: gkrellmms: debian/changelog should be utf8 * [2008-02-29] Removed 2.1.22-1 from unstable (Joerg Jaspert) * [2008-01-21] gkrellmms REMOVED from testing (Britney) #454016: libglade-perl: debian/changelog should be utf8 * [2008-02-16] glade-perl REMOVED from testing (Britney) * [2008-02-15] Removed 0.61-1.1 from unstable (Joerg Jaspert) #454027: sgmltexi: debian/changelog should be utf8 * [2008-01-31] sgmltexi REMOVED from testing (Britney) * [2008-01-31] Removed 2003.00.00-2.2 from unstable (Joerg Jaspert) #454016: libglade-perl: debian/changelog should be utf8 * [2008-02-16] glade-perl REMOVED from testing (Britney) * [2008-02-15] Removed 0.61-1.1 from unstable (Joerg Jaspert) Maybe these bugs can be closed or marked as non-blocking? What about gmanedit? I am Cc:ing the ITA for followup. Anibal, do you plan to upload soon? Could you mark #453982 pending? Stuff that still needs to happen: * radiusclient: NMU (patch at #456870) by Marga (announced Thu, 28 Feb 2008) * gmanedit: upload with a new maintainer, hopefully fixing other bugs too by Anibal Alvelar * unblock of #453954 by #453966, #453982, #453991, #454016, #454027, #454016 (Amaya, about to). -- ·''`.Moi je voudrais bien, un beau matin, qu'il y ait : :' : une fleur dans mon jardin `. `' -- Manu Chao `- Proudly running (unstable) Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass bug filing: non-UTF8 debian/{control.changelog}
Amaya wrote: > * gmanedit: upload with a new maintainer, hopefully fixing other bugs too by > Anibal Alvelar > * unblock of #453954 by #453966, #453982, #453991, #454016, #454027, #454016 > (Amaya, about to). Sorry, #453982 should not be marked un-blocking, as gmanedit is expecting a new upload. The rest of the unblocked have just been issued. They will be closed when the packages leave stable and old-stable. I hope this answers Bubulle's question at #453966. -- ·''`.Moi je voudrais bien, un beau matin, qu'il y ait : :' : une fleur dans mon jardin `. `' -- Manu Chao `- Proudly running (unstable) Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Unblocking
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > unblock 453954 by 453966 Bug#453966: xmms-arts: debian/changelog should be utf8 Bug#453954: general: Lenny release goal: UTF-8 debian/changelog and debian/control Was blocked by: 242690 338837 338838 356825 451080 453960 453961 453962 453963 453964 453965 453966 453967 453968 453969 453970 453971 453972 453973 453974 453976 453977 453978 453979 453980 453981 453982 453983 453984 453985 453986 453987 453988 453989 453990 453991 453992 453993 453994 453995 453996 453997 453998 453999 454000 454001 454002 454003 454004 454005 454006 454007 454008 454009 454010 454011 454012 454013 454014 454015 454016 454017 454018 454019 454020 454021 454022 454023 454024 454025 454026 454027 454028 454029 454030 454031 454032 454033 454034 454035 Blocking bugs of 453954 removed: 453966 > unblock 453954 by 453991 Bug#453991: gkrellmms: debian/changelog should be utf8 Bug#453954: general: Lenny release goal: UTF-8 debian/changelog and debian/control Was blocked by: 242690 338837 338838 356825 451080 453960 453961 453962 453963 453964 453965 453967 453968 453969 453970 453971 453972 453973 453974 453976 453977 453978 453979 453980 453981 453982 453983 453984 453985 453986 453987 453988 453989 453990 453991 453992 453993 453994 453995 453996 453997 453998 453999 454000 454001 454002 454003 454004 454005 454006 454007 454008 454009 454010 454011 454012 454013 454014 454015 454016 454017 454018 454019 454020 454021 454022 454023 454024 454025 454026 454027 454028 454029 454030 454031 454032 454033 454034 454035 Blocking bugs of 453954 removed: 453991 > unblock 453954 by 454016 Bug#454016: libglade-perl: debian/changelog should be utf8 Bug#453954: general: Lenny release goal: UTF-8 debian/changelog and debian/control Was blocked by: 242690 338837 338838 356825 451080 453960 453961 453962 453963 453964 453965 453967 453968 453969 453970 453971 453972 453973 453974 453976 453977 453978 453979 453980 453981 453982 453983 453984 453985 453986 453987 453988 453989 453990 453992 453993 453994 453995 453996 453997 453998 453999 454000 454001 454002 454003 454004 454005 454006 454007 454008 454009 454010 454011 454012 454013 454014 454015 454016 454017 454018 454019 454020 454021 454022 454023 454024 454025 454026 454027 454028 454029 454030 454031 454032 454033 454034 454035 Blocking bugs of 453954 removed: 454016 > unblock 453954 by 454027 Bug#454027: sgmltexi: debian/changelog should be utf8 Bug#453954: general: Lenny release goal: UTF-8 debian/changelog and debian/control Was blocked by: 242690 338837 338838 356825 451080 453960 453961 453962 453963 453964 453965 453967 453968 453969 453970 453971 453972 453973 453974 453976 453977 453978 453979 453980 453981 453982 453983 453984 453985 453986 453987 453988 453989 453990 453992 453993 453994 453995 453996 453997 453998 453999 454000 454001 454002 454003 454004 454005 454006 454007 454008 454009 454010 454011 454012 454013 454014 454015 454017 454018 454019 454020 454021 454022 454023 454024 454025 454026 454027 454028 454029 454030 454031 454032 454033 454034 454035 Blocking bugs of 453954 removed: 454027 > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#469186: ITP: libregexp-assemble-perl -- Assemble multiple Regular Expressions into a single regular expression
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Xavier Guimard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libregexp-assemble-perl Version : 0.32 Upstream Author : David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://search.cpan.org/~dland/Regexp-Assemble-0.32/ * License : GPL and Artistic Programming Lang: Perl Description : Assemble multiple Regular Expressions into a single regular expression (Include the long description here.) Regexp::Assemble takes an arbitrary number of regular expressions and assembles them into a single regular expression (or RE) that matches all that the individual REs match. As a result, instead of having a large list of expressions to loop over, a target string only needs to be tested against one expression. This is interesting when you have several thousand patterns to deal with. Serious effort is made to produce the smallest pattern possible. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable'), (600, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-3-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash . -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass bug filing: non-UTF8 debian/{control.changelog}
Quoting Bas Zoetekouw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Of those, perl is a false positive (caused by lintian not detecting the > correct changelog file), the radius bugs are pending, gkrelmms is > removed from the archive, and gmanedit is in the process of being > adopted (but I will NMU it if necessary). > > I should remark here that almost all of the work was done by Christian > Perrier. I merely reported most of the bugs; Christian fixed most of > them. Sure but your work helped *a lot* for this. I just found those issues a few weeks and decided that I would give this a push. About perl, Brendan O'Dea mentioned me that he will anyway push the suggestion to change upstream's changelog to UTf-8.so even if this is a false positive, it could be fixed at some time. > > > There is one package with a NEWS.Debian encoding problem and 417 packages > > with debian/copyright encoding problems, but those weren't release goals. > > Yes, I think this should be something for lenny+1, possibly combined > with moving debian/copyright to machine-readable form [1]. And at that time, because lintian warns about this, the number of packages should be considerably lower. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mass ITPs
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 15:01:13 +0100, Thomas Weber wrote: > Just for the record: every single package Rafael itp'd is already in > the archive as part of octave2.1-forge. Upstream decided to split this > up, so we follow. > If the software is already packaged, then it doesn't need an ITP bug imo... That's just noise. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dbopen(3) manpage, but no library implements it?
I'm looking at fixing a bug on one of my packages: http://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080229 ... the binary in question isn't being built because it wants to use dbopen(3).We seem to have a manpage for dbopen(3) but no library that provides it. Is the only option to port the code to the DB- >open() stuff in libdb4*-dev? Will -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
swfdec0.6 buildd failure
Hello, I was looking at the swfdec0.6 package and wondered why it is unavailable on almost all architecture. So I looked at the build logs and they (almost) fail in a quite strange way. It seems apt installed a broken set of packages (even though a package set satisfying the build-dependencies was -probably- available). The build thus failed. See http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=swfdec0.6&ver=0.6.0-1&arch=powerpc&stamp=1203904370&file=log&as=raw Is this a bug in APT? Regards Jiri Palecek -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: swfdec0.6 buildd failure
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 21:52 +0100, Jiří Paleček wrote: > Hello, > > I was looking at the swfdec0.6 package and wondered why it is unavailable > on almost all architecture. It only exists in experimental - packages in experimental *might* be autobuilt but the only way to be sure is to get the package in a fit state for unstable. > So I looked at the build logs and they > (almost) fail in a quite strange way. It seems apt installed a broken set > of packages (even though a package set satisfying the build-dependencies > was -probably- available). Probably? Are you able to build it using pbuilder yourself? > Is this a bug in APT? Probably not. It looks more like a feature of experimental, most of the logs I saw include this error: libglib2.0-dev: Depends: libglib2.0-0 (= 2.14.6-1) but 2.15.5-1 is to be installed i.e. one of your dependencies is also in experimental and therefore builds of your package try to use this experimental version which then fails because experimental is not a complete distribution. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bits from DEHS
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:13:02AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:07:07PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > > * New upstream version notifications > > > Since yesterday DEHS started sending notifications to the 'summary' > > > tag/keyword of the PTS when it finds a new upstream version. > > Was this blessed by the PTS admins before it was deployed? > Yes, in fact I asked to reuse summary instead of creating a new keyword. > My logic was the following: summary mails only contains the testing > transition mails that are sent both to the maintainer and to the PTS. > Given that the maintainer already receives those notices, he's probably > not subscribed to the summary keyword. > Why doesn't that work in your case? Yeah, I guess it does after all; I was thinking that the testing transition mails were only sent to the PTS, not to the maintainers, but since they are this works ok for me once I've tuned all the PTS subscriptions properly. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
